1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Science is based on philosophy

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by dmap, Jun 9, 2019.

  1. dmap

    dmap God is good and beautiful

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2018
    Messages:
    1,392
    Ratings:
    +395
    Religion:
    deist monotheist agnostic panentheist
    Science is based on philosophy, therefore, philosophy is essential in determining truth and knowledge. People often claim that all that is needed is science.

    The scientific method of science is a philosophical construct, using epistemology to determine the nature of truth and knowledge, and how to prove things.

    Other aspects of reality (or of claimed reality) fall under the category of religion and spirituality; but these should be evaluated via philosophy. Usually, these are considered as revealed knowledge from God. But revealed religions and revealed spiritual paths are untrustworthy sources of truth and knowledge: they require philosophical evidence to back them up. (And also, they should not contradict science.)
     
    • Like Like x 6
    • Useful Useful x 1
  2. AT-AT

    AT-AT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2019
    Messages:
    2,579
    Ratings:
    +1,592
    Religion:
    God
    Philosophy is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat.

    Metaphysics is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn't there.

    Theology is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn't there, and shouting "I found it!"

    Science is like being in a dark room looking for a black cat while using a flashlight.
     
    • Winner Winner x 4
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Creative Creative x 1
  3. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    12,995
    Ratings:
    +8,934
    Religion:
    None

    Some hypothesis are derived from philosophical ideas but from that point...

    The scientific method comprises of systematically observing, measuring and experimenting, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Augustus

    Augustus the Unreasonable

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Messages:
    9,350
    Ratings:
    +8,029
    Religion:
    none
    Until the 19th C 'science' in the modern sense didn't exist, and there was no such thing as a scientist.

    People like Newton, Bacon, Copernicus, etc. were natural philosophers, and natural philosophy was not seen as distinct from philosophy.

    Obviously in this regard science developed out of philosophy (and it can still often be useful to think of science as a specific part of philosophy rather than some monadic entity)

    Some people seem to think today that science has 'moved beyond' philosophy, but this line of thought is more scientistic, than scientific:

    I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today—and even professional scientists—seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth. (Einstein to Thornton, 7 December 1944, EA 61-574) Einstein’s Philosophy of Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

    The philosophy of science deals with the foundations, methods and implications of the sciences and is essential for them to function effectively.

    What differentiates science from 'not science' (demarcation)? Are results reliable/generalisable? How confident should we be and how should that affect our action? How do scientific findings impact the 'real world'? How does the science of complex systems differ from that of simple systems? What are acceptable scientific ethics? etc.

    The belief that science has no need for philosophy is basically scientism.

    (This obviously doesn't mean that all philosophy is of equal value, or "science relies on philosophy, therefore Jesus!", etc)
     
    • Winner Winner x 5
  5. Israel Khan

    Israel Khan Active Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2017
    Messages:
    476
    Ratings:
    +162
    Religion:
    Ex - JW
    The philosophy of science is concerned with determining how we examine reality. So the scientific method is a result of that. It does have limitations though which the philosophy of science discusses. But because it can repeat its findings it is pretty much a good starting point. It might not tell us all there is to reality though.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. dmap

    dmap God is good and beautiful

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2018
    Messages:
    1,392
    Ratings:
    +395
    Religion:
    deist monotheist agnostic panentheist
    Yes. This is a philosophical construct, based on epistemology and having certain assumption based on metaphysics.
     
  7. dmap

    dmap God is good and beautiful

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2018
    Messages:
    1,392
    Ratings:
    +395
    Religion:
    deist monotheist agnostic panentheist
    Yes, thank you for you entire post.
     
  8. dmap

    dmap God is good and beautiful

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2018
    Messages:
    1,392
    Ratings:
    +395
    Religion:
    deist monotheist agnostic panentheist
    I think there is a gaping hole in science in its consideration of the nature of consciousness (and its contents, the world of ideas). Merely assuming materialism/physicalism is, to me, very unsatisfying.
     
  9. bobhikes

    bobhikes infinitologist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Messages:
    7,828
    Ratings:
    +1,833
    Science is only possible then with human creation's. Science claims that proof is necessary yet we only validate with human knowledge, we can't even understand ourselves 100%, can't understand any other living creature, yet science can prove gravity, conservation of energy, and the speed of light.
     
  10. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    10,642
    Ratings:
    +4,638
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    Your post is misleading concerning the nature of science.

    First what 'people claim' is not science. Second, Science is not based on philosophy, and this is too misleading. Science is based on the objective verifiable evidence. A Philosophy of Science has developed over the years to develop Methodological Naturalism with the purpose of separating science from theology/philosophy

    Science does not prove 'things.' It falsifies theories and hypothesis based on objective verifiable physical evidence.

    Philosophical evidence? I have a problem with this without an explanation.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    11,162
    Ratings:
    +3,811
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    Science is based entirely on "revelation". That's the whole purpose of doing the scientific experiment: to 'reveal' previously unknown relationships within the physical realm. Philosophy, on the other hand, deals with exploring and seeking revelation in the metaphysical (conceptual) realm. Theology is a branch of philosophy related to the concept of "God", and religions are the various methodologies by which we humans apply our theological propositions to our experience of reality.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    11,265
    Ratings:
    +5,336
    Religion:
    None
    There may be idiots who claim that science is all
    that is needed for truth and knowledge.

    Science does not do "truth" nor does it "prove"
    things.

    Why cite uneducated persons unknown and not
    present?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. joe1776

    joe1776 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2017
    Messages:
    2,572
    Ratings:
    +913
    Religion:
    None
    I don't see that science is based on philosophy.

    Philosophy and science are both activities of the reasoning function of our brains, so similar patterns of thought emerge in each.

    As a young man I had much greater respect for the work of scientists and philosophers than I do now. I now think that we humans as a group over-estimate our ability to reason.

    For example, moral philosophers have been assuming for three hundred years or so that moral judgments (conscience) were judgments of reason. Science is now developing to support the notion that David Hume was right that our moral judgments are intuitive. But college Psych courses are still teaching a 60 year-old rationalist approach (Kohlberg) that has no science to support it.
     
    #13 joe1776, Jun 9, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  14. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    11,162
    Ratings:
    +3,811
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    Logic would dictate that they are the result of both, as intuition is not without reason, and reason is not without it's intuitive influence.
     
  15. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    3,443
    Ratings:
    +2,418
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    I must say I think that is questionable.

    The advent of modern computers allows us to see consciousness in a perspective different from the traditional way of viewing it. It has been traditional to treat consciousness as an entity, a "thing". I suspect that is a category error.

    Consciousness, surely, is a process, an activity of the brain, rather than an entity. It is the working of what one might call the operating system of the brain. Viewed in this way, I personally do not see that consciousness presents any special issues, as far as its treatment by science goes.

    However, the "world of ideas" is another thing and science is not the right toolkit for that at all, I quite agree.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Useful Useful x 1
  16. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    11,162
    Ratings:
    +3,811
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    But the 'hardware' AND the 'operating system' are not the effective result. And its the result that really matters. It's the result that generates our metaphysical experience of existence. It's the result that is literally 'everything that we are'. Knowing the mechanisms is not knowing the results. Not even close.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. wellwisher

    wellwisher Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2018
    Messages:
    497
    Ratings:
    +189
    Religion:
    Catholic
    The Philosophy of science limits scientific investigation to things that are collectively verifiable via our sensory systems using technology and tools that expand their range.

    As an example, if we all went into the woods at night, and one person heard a unique sound, but nobody else hears its, that sound would not be part of the verifiable data, since nobody else could hear it. The method of science has peer review as well as independent verification of experiments to make sure the data is tangible and objective to all. Anything beyond this is not allowed.

    That being said, there is a range of real and tangible data, connected to consciousness, that is not consistent with this philosophy. For example, say I had a dream and related the dream in all its tiny details. Even if my recollection was spot on and I had the reputation of always telling the truth, this dream is not verifiable by anyone else. Nobody else can read my mind and then verify my claims using their sensory systems. We do not have the tools, so I could externally record my dream details, nor could I reproduce this particular dream on demand, even if we had the tools. Dreams are often one of a kind.

    The dream is an example of real objective data, to any first person observer. We have all experienced, dreams to know they are real output data from the brain. However, since any dream is not verifiable in a collective sense, it is called subjective to the collective mind. Dreams exist at the threshold of where the philosophy of science starts to break down in terms of the group, but not necessarily in terms of the individual. You can record and analyze your dreams in a solid scientific way, but this will never be verifiable in terms of the group.

    If a person had a spiritual experience, this may also be a unique event, with respect to its details. It may be a one shot thing, that may never occur again, in the exact same way. This will often be verifiable in terms of the philosophy of the science of one, but not the philosophy of all. This does not mean it was not real data, but only means it is outside the boundaries of peer review and collective verification science. The human psyche is the last frontier for science, but its collective investigation would require altering the philosophy. Nw it called soft science due to being at the boundary.

    Before the age of enlightenment; age of reason, the philosophy of science was more expansive and took into account projection from the human psyche. Science was originally more mystical.The alchemists, who would develop many of the tools and procedures of modern chemistry, made use of the unconscious projection factor; mysticism. They were able to develop tools and methods, using unconscious development factors that are not easy to verify; science from not science, based on the modern philosophy of science.

    When I was a young development engineer, I was given an emergency project that required I develop the best available technology for removing mercury from water. I had to meet EPA standards ten years in the future. To meets the need of the emergency situation, I needed it done, yesterday.

    There was nothing in the science literature to borrow, since I had to exceed the state of the art by an order of magnitude. At that time, I was also doing independent hobby research on the human psyche and I had become an expert in collective human symbolism. I decided to try an alchemist mystical logic approach, instead of try random tweak experiments, using the then best existing science and technology.

    The alchemists were very much acquainted with mercury and had logic of like attracts like. To make a long story short, using their approach, modified to the future, it took me three weeks to demonstrate the new best available technology. I even wrote my alchemy logic approach, in a paper that I asked to publish a few months later, due to the successful scale up and demonstration that treated millions of gallons of water to below 1 part per trillion.

    Everyone rolled their eyes when they read my paper, but since I got the job done, in record time, under budget, it was all acceptable, in light of the quirks of a young eccentric hot shot scientist. I was jokingly called the Mercury Man; quicksilver.

    The point is, there is a broader based philosophy of science, that is not allowed by the current method, unless it can produce tangible results, or be covered up with alternate logic that is less metaphysical. I pushed the boundary of the philosophy to be 100% honest. Someday science will expand to include this, so we can calibrate the most important tool in science; mind. Without this gray area of science developed, mind calibration is not possible. In the mean time, mutually exclusive theory, which is not rational, is accepted and even published. Alchemy exists in modern theoretical science, but only if properly disguised with math.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • Creative Creative x 1
  18. joe1776

    joe1776 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2017
    Messages:
    2,572
    Ratings:
    +913
    Religion:
    None
    I don't see that as logical at all. Intuitive judgments often can't be explained reasonably. Moreover, they are immediate feeling that emerge from the unconscious unlike the slower process of reasoning that begins in the conscious part of the brain.

    Science (Haidt 2001) has found that moral judgments are immediate and the reasoning is done after the fact and often doesn't support the judgment (one can't presume intuitive judgments are wrong because they can't be explained well).
     
    #18 joe1776, Jun 9, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  19. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    3,443
    Ratings:
    +2,418
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    Oh absolutely. The most science can really do at present is investigate responses to stimuli.
     
  20. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    11,162
    Ratings:
    +3,811
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    And just as often, they can. Intuition is as often reason acting so quickly and subconsciously that the machinations go unnoticed.
    Correct, but speed and lack of awareness do not negate the presence of reason.
    Much like sex, and yet sex is as reasoned as it is impulsive.
     
    #20 PureX, Jun 9, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2019
    • Like Like x 2
Loading...